These words that you have quoted are total absolute meaningless buzzword bullshit.
And unless our very own Bathstar has somehow planted a quote attributable to Mr. "Parrish" I would suggest to you that Bathstar is Parrish, or is it, Parrish is Bathstar.
The fact that an advisor to a stock holder, hired by that stock hold gives that stockholder good back or insouciant advise, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REGULATION FD. Further the advise given in that capacity as adviser, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITIES LAWS. It may be fraud, negligence or breach of contract or maybe even spousal abuse, but IT IS NOT THE PROPER SUBJECT OF THE SECURITIES ACTS.
These whackos, second guessers, and tealeaf readers seem to come crawling out of the cracks in the woodwork if given half a chance.
If this sort of thing gets submitted to the Court, the Court, after straining to understand the arguments will be so pissed at having wasted the time that it will not be happy.
You heard it here first folks. |
